The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About026-1165-15-000 (2) f Wisconsin Department of Commerce SOIL EVALUATION REPORT Page -4 of Division of Safety and Buildings in accordance with Comm 85, Wis. Adm. Code County Attach complete site plan on paper not less than 8 112 x 11 inches in size. Plan must / n \ include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and Parcel I.D. percent slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and location and distance to nearest road. P/easer•print-all inforrnadon.-_.-.m, Revi ed b Date / 23 6 Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes (Privajcy taw, s. 15.04 (1) (m)). i Property Owner Property Location ~i ~j C/`~ ' " Govt. Lot 1 / 114 S T30 N R E (o W Property Owner's Mai' Address Lot # Block # Subd. Name or M# City tate 7jpZode. Phonf.,Ku lber,.,-_,j ❑ City ❑ village ;KT Nearest Road New Construction Us • Residential / Number of bedroom Code derived design flow rated GPD ❑ Replacement Public 'ormeercial - Describe: Parent material _T~ _ 1/~l~! Flood Plain elevation if applicable ft. General comm ati 1~-~ and recommendations:, V _74 a 's 07 ori ng # Boring II_.~.j JI Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/fP in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color G Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 -z 3 -71 ®Boring # ❑ Boring /1oD►(l Pit Ground surface elev/y ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPD/f? in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. `Eff#1 'Eff#2 4, 4C 1~, f-7 1,-2 Effluent #1 = BOD > 30 < 220 mg/L and TSS >30 ` Effluent #2 = BOD < 30 mg/L and TSS < 30 mglL CST Name (Please Print) Signature CST Number Bird Plumbing, Inc. Shaun Bird ~~Z~ 226900 Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number 1008 192nd Ave, New Richmond, WI 54017 - r/. 0 =S 715-246-4516 I Property Owner _ Parcel ID # Page of Boring # F] Boring r F3_1 Pit Ground surface elev. ft• Depth to limiting factor --~„2`~ in. Soil Application Rate Horizon Depth Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPDIfg in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 A2 ° L Q'r" Boring # ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. Soil ~Eplicafion Rate Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots •E~GPD/ffE in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. Boring # Boring Ground surface elev. ft. Depth to limiting factor in. F-1 ❑ Pit Soil Application Rate GPD/ff Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description. Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots 'Eff#1 'Eff#2 in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. Effluent #1 = BOD, > 30 < 220 mg/L and TSS >30:S 150 mglL ` Effluent #2 = BODS < 30 mi and TSS 30 m91L The Department of Commerce is an equal opportunity service provider and employer. If you need assistance to access services or need material in an altemate format, please contact the department at 608-266-3151 or TTY 608-264-8777. SBO.8330 (66(00) I M Soil Test Plot PlJa Project Name William Stock/Steve Dalton SBir Address 1748 112th St. Ne w Richmond Wi 54017 01 #226900 Lot 15 Subdivision Lundy Meadows Date 8/11/03 N 1 /2 SE 1/4S 22 T 30 N/1318 W Township Richmond F1 Boring Q Well PL Property Line County ST. CROIX BM or VRP Assume Elevation 100 ft. Top of Survey Iron System Elevation 98.3/97.7 *HRPSame as Benchmark Alt. BM Top of 2" Pipe @ 100.2' Alt. B. * Please note: Installer must B.M. verify all lot lines and setbacks 463' Property Line before installation. 159 159B-1 30' Scale is 1" = 40' 8% unless otherwise slope noted 5' B-3 Please Note: Tested area may not be suitable for 90' desired building area. Check system location before excavating. B-2 101' 103' a a M O M 1 ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ST. CRODC COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 00."0 ZONING DEPARTMENT / / N / / M / M / 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016-7710 Phone: (715) 3864680 Fax (715) 386-4686 Memo to File From: Pam Quinn Date: 4/27/2004 Re: Sandy loam structure misinterpretation on subdivision soil reports Recent soil on-site determinations have brought a problem to our attention. During these on- sites, boiings were excavated to confirm soil conditions where two conflicting soil reports had been submitted for zoniI department review. The soil profiles, evaluated by myself, Dave Fogerty, and Dave Steel (all certified soil testers) differed from the original soil reports in that massive (structureless) sandy loams were encountered in horizons that were described as having either moderate, medium subangular blocky (2msbk) structure by Adam Schumaker or weak, medium granular structure (I mgr) by Shaun Bird. There apparently has been a misunderstanding between "structure" caused by handling samples of the soil during texturing versus the soil characteristics in situ. The soil, when chunks were taken out of the profile to hand texture, with pressure parted into "crumbs" that appeared at first to be subangular or granular in shape. However, these were not true peds that broke apart along planes of weakness, but fragments created by handling. The soil when observed in the horizon did not have distinct units of structure and should have been reported as "massive". Added notation: on 4/23/04 Mark Iverson (Cedar Corp. certified professional soil scientist), Shaun Bird, and myself did an evaluation of soils on Lots 6 & 9, Richmond Meadows where the original soil report described the third horizon as sandy loam, "lmgr". On Lot 6 we checked soil profiles within a POWTS distribution cell and then excavated a test pit on Lot 9. The sandy loams in question were a weak, coarse to very coarse subangular blocky structure, where planes of weakness were just discernible when peds were parted from the profile. The peds separated with very light pressure by soil tester. Sand coatings were observed on the ped faces in the Lot 9 soils, which supported the determination that some structure existed to allow water to move through the upper portion of the sandy loam horizon. However, below the weak-structured soil we found massive (structureless) sandy loams and the boundary between these horizons was irregular, which would mean a distribution cell could encounter alternating weak and massive sandy loam. Shaun said he would amend his soil reports with a memo recommending that any sandy loams he identified as "lmgr" or "2 mgr" be assigned a lower loading rate of 0.3 gpd/ft2 (see attached memo for Whitetail Meadows) to provide a larger dispersal area. t Page Two - Soil Memo 4/27/04 Massive sandy loams have been assigned a soil application rate of 0.2 gpd/ft2 with the code changes in Comm 83.44-2, effective as of 2/1/04. The application rates listed on the soil reports were higher due to the structure having been described as either weak or moderate, which affects the calculations for sizing of POWTS distribution cells. Obviously, one of the concerns is to make sure loading rates for the soils are not in error and allow undersized POWTS to be installed. For example, in December 2003, Lot 35 of Richmond Meadows subdivision had to have its loading rate reduced to 0.3 gpd/sq. ft. when the installer encountered massive sandy loam at the system elevation. The sandy loam horizon had been described on the soil report as "Imgr" with firm consistence. Leroy Jansky, Dept. of Commerce Regional Wastewater Specialist, has been consulted on this situation and advised the zoning department to require on-site verifications for any lots with this potential misinterpretation on the soil reports. All soil reports with sandy loam "1 or 2 mgr" as its structure will be required to use a design based on the current code's soil application rate for massive sandy loam @ 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. unless additional soil testing proves otherwise.